Unemployed used as unpaid staff at Jubilee event and expected to sleep outside

[HRHEightiesChick]

This story about unpaid workers doing the security at the flotilla event yesterday is bad. They were misled about not being paid, and had to sleep out in tents or actually outside 'under London bridge' was suggested to them. This is Workfare in action again, I believe.

The managing director did well. Why has he piled in now and why haven't mainstream New Labour politicians?

Lord Prescott kept telling us he is concerned because of the Olympics, is he not concerned about other workfare employees - in supermarkets and elsewhere who are not being paid - and why has he not protested about those in the same way with the same media coverage?

This looks a bit like a media management story. It seems he got his facts wrong about a director being on the coach. He talks about "not fit for purpose", but teh managing director came across very well and explained that mistakes had been made. The company didn't create workfare - the government did, and a charity was involved in the contract.

The managing director said that sheltered accomodation was available, but two people chose to set up a tent, when they were advised not to. I wonder if it was those two people who subsequently complained.

Also it sounds like the company is paying the cost of these people getting their security qualification, which will enable them to then earn money at the Olympics, where staff have to be security qualified and have to be paid for the work they do.

So Lord Prescott's argument that this could set a precedent for the Olympics, which is his concern, he tells us, seems to be unfounded. Theresa May will probably explain it to him in a reply to his letter.

Once they get this security qualification, they will be able to get paid work in the security industry for 3 years, so the BBC report seemed to say.

So the unpaid aspect of this work is only a temporary step on the path to a qualification that will benefit them in the long run. That's possibly why they volunteered and why few of them seem to have complained.

Also, it was very interesting that the BBC didn't appear to ask about the reports that they were unaware that they wouldn't be paid. My guess is that that is also not true and is part of the spin doctor media management.

It doesn't sound like these people are unemployable at all. On the contrary, they seem to be well motivayed and actually volunteered as part of the process of the company providing them with the training and experience that is necessary to get this security qualification, which will be paid for by the company and not the unemployed people out of their own pocket.

I wonder if New Labour paid for the training and cost of these type of certificates for unemployed people when they were in power.

They should have been paid for that work, regardless of whether they were doing some 'security qualification or not.

The company argues that these workers did not want to be paid as they would lose their benefits.

Here's an idea: why not give them a paid job and train them so they don't need benefits?

The reason is it's much cheaper to keep them on benefits and have them work for 'free' thus lining the pockets of the business at taxpayer's expense.

The company is used by the charity and government to provide the training necessary to get this certificate. The people can't work in the security industry without having this certificate. Presumably this is something that the government has stipulated.

Once they have the certificate, they will no longer need to be on benefits as they will be allowed to gain employment in the security sector. It's not about keeping them on benefits, it's about getting them teh certificate, which is a path to employment. The government wants to get peoploe off benefits, because it is costing the government money. They would prefer to have these people employed.

This is not like a supermarket job, where you don't need a certificate to get employment. To work in the security industry, you have to get that certificate. Without that qualification, there is no chance of working in that industry. That is why these people volunteered for this post.

Why don't the media, like the Daily Mail, interview some of the volunteers and find out how well motivated they are and if they were aware that this task would be unpaid?

Then we will find out if Lord Prescott is right about "not fit for purpose".

This 'certificate' is yet another hoop for people to jump through before they reach the promised land of minimum wage.

Whatever happened to on the job training, you can pay people and train them at the same time.

Showsec - the name of the company came to me in a nightmare.

Their staff were clueless and aggressive.

There have been complaints about their attitude before

former staff and eventgoers give their comments on Showsec

For balance:

Showsec's managing director says it's all got up by whingers

Sadly, festival goers are used to being treated appallingly by heavy-handed security staff.

It's evident that Showsec is committed to bringing this experience to a wider range of the public.

Why was this company given charge of such a prestigious event?

Lord Prescott can turn up for a session at the House of Lords and get paid a daily allowance - he needs no certificate. But these unemployed people can't get on the employment ladder in the security industry without this certificate. If the government doesn't pay for them to get this certificate, then they have little choice but to volunteer and hope that a company will pay the cost of getting this certificate so that they can get a foot on the employment ladder.

'This 'certificate' is yet another hoop for people to jump through before they reach the promised land of minimum wage.'

I agree. I think there is too much red tape and barriers to employment. But in security, there are minimum standards that have to be met, since these people are responsible for the safety of others. However, the cost of these certificates should be reduced and subsidised by the government, so that people can gain access.

'Whatever happened to on the job training, you can pay people and train them at the same time.'

I agree with that. But that is not the comapny's fault. The government and charity dealing with the contract would probably have to pay the company more.

Why shouldn't the company bear the cost of training it's staff and paying them for a day's work? Many companies do.

Rather than paying out benefits with teh hope that some well motivated people will "volunteer" to join schemes that lead to training and certificates, why not make the training free to unemployed people, while still paying them their benefits, so that they have a chance of getting off benefits?

'Why shouldn't the company bear the cost of training it's staff and paying them for a day's work? Many companies do.'

Because they probably can't afford to. They are not like the government who can pay MPs' expenses and pay for moats out of taxpayer money. The company probably employs people on short term temporary contracts and many of the people they train will probably go to work for other employers after they have got the certificate.

Once they have the certificate, they will no longer need to be on benefits as they will be allowed to gain employment in the security sector.

The problem is Claig, that they'll get a job for the Olympics and then find that there are no stewarding vacancies for them so end up back on benefits. They now have the experience to find one particular type of temporary, unskilled seasonal work. This doesn't equip people with the skills, knowledge ad experience that they will need to find other work when this goes. That is what's needed to reduce unemployment - meaningful education, experience and training. Workfare provides none of this.

'Why shouldn't the company bear the cost of training it's staff and paying them for a day's work? Many companies do.'

I think it is different when it comes to large employers like supermarkets. If there is a job to be done, then they should be able to afford to pay minimum wage for it. But for small epeloyers who provide training that leads to real qulaifications, then unless the government pays them a full rate, they may not be able to pay people the going rate.

The small employer did not create the policy, the charity and government seem to administer it.

MammaBrussels, I think you may be wrong where this security certificate is concerned. I think this allows people to work in more positions than just temporary stewarding e.g. company security, night watching, door people in clubs etc. I think it is probably a doorway to a future, even if it is minimum wage. But without this certificate, the door will be closed.

I don't think supermarket training is as useful as having a security certificate that allows people entry into the security industry.

The "elite" will certainly be needing security in time to come.

'That is what's needed to reduce unemployment - meaningful education, experience and training. Workfare provides none of this.'

I agree that free, quality training and education is needed, and stacking supermarket shelves for no pay doesn't cut it. But, this case seems to me to be different, as this will lead to a qualification that will open doors and without this qualification, the door will be bolted.

The article said it was an NVQ in Spectator Safety. It doesn't sound like it's very transferable.

Nope it just qualifies them for stewarding work City & Guilds course outline

If it is necessary to have a qualification to steward these events why was this not necessary this time? Does the qualification just involve stewarding an event? Surely it should involve more than that. They should have been paired up with a qualified and experienced person to show them the ropes.

Presumably this contract was awarded some time ago. Is there any way to find out how much CPUK got for it? If workfare had not been available what were they planning on doing?

MammaBrussels, I did not realise that the qualification was as limited as that. I agree, it doesn't sound as useful as I had hoped it would be.

Morning Claig, the only thing that's new that I can see is that 'accommodation was available'.The rest of it was either in the Guardian report or Eddie Gillard's blog. I would expect crowd control personnel on large contracts such as this one to be fully qualified and at least experienced, but these people appear to have just been thrown in the deep end.

From what you've said, the most disappointing thing is Prezza's attitude to workfare. A supposedly left wing politician espousing modern day slavery is a bit much.